Six movie studios have announced that they will let Internet users pay to download films and keep them permanently, sending a signal that the film industry may be starting to rethink its stance on digital content.
The digital films — a collection of recent releases and popular older titles — will be sold by Movielink and CinemaNow, a pair of online retailers. (Those companies had previously offered titles that could be viewed for only a 24-hour period.)
The long-term downloads may sound like a promising idea, but it is unlikely that movie buffs, let alone college students, will be lining up to look for their favorite films. New releases will cost between $20 and $30 to download, and older titles will sell for at least $10. Those prices are too steep to arouse much interest, some analysts say. (The New York Times)
32 Responses to Digital and Durable
cmorpork - March 10, 2012 at 5:56 pm
From the Scalia lecture: “One person asked the interesting question of whether, if he had been on the court before slavery were outlawed, he would have upheld slavery. His response was that yes – under the rationale that his job is to interpret the Constitution and that it was explicitly a part of the Constitution.”
Pretty much says it all, doesn’t it? Never mind that many have argued for centuries that the constitution is an explicitly antislavery document. Never mind that the majority of the signers, as Lincoln pointed out, opposed the extension of slavery. Almost 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, Justice Scalia blithely pronounces the constitution proslavery. Selective “originalists” are the worst historians.
Not to mention his almost giddy support for torture a few years ago. Dude is a shade to the right of Torquemada.
physioprof - March 11, 2012 at 11:51 am
”Never mind that the majority of the signers, as Lincoln pointed out, opposed the extension of slavery.”
What is relevant to constitutional interpretation is not the personal opinions of the signers–even a majority of them–but the manifest intent of the document and–more importantly–those of the ratification conventions. These considerations make it absolutely 100% clear that the original US Constitution absolutely did not outlaw slavery, but rather embraced its continuation. This is the so-called “original sin” of the US Constitution. The three-fifths compromise hammered out in the consitutional convention and embodied in the text and the later Missouri compromise–among many other facts–make this abundantly clear and completely beyond historical dispute.
Of course, none of this is to say that the original US Constitution doesn’t contain moral and legal precepts that could be interpreted as outlawing slavery. But the fact is that at the time it was negotiated, written, signed, and ratified, there is absolutely zero doubt that it was interpreted by all relevant parties as allowing slavery to continue. Even though it is possible that a majority of signers, ratifiers, and others opposed the extension of slavery, it was seen as a necessary compromise to get the slave states on board with the formation of a new nation.
Anyway, back to the point of TR’s post: If it is true that the protesters were silent and didn’t otherwise interfere with Scalia’s speech, then it is disgusting that a university would have kicked them out.
cpotter01 - March 11, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Good history, CPP: to add to this, it is worth pointing out that framers opposed to and framers supporting slavery were able to make this compromise because they thought slavery would end soon anyway: much of their reasoning was based on scientific beliefs that we would now view as delusional. These views imagined non-white people (such as Indians and Africans,) as *either* biologically fragile and likely to die off completely (by the 1790s, eastern elites had more or less forgotten that the Indians populating the coastal colonies had been killed, driven out and/or enslaved), or in a process of evolution toward whiteness. The latter hypothesis was Jefferson’s and was, we now know, derived from observing his own progeny, some of whom were African descended through their partly white mother, the enslaved Sally Hemings. (Hemings may also have been Jefferson’s wife’s half-sister, another potential point of racial study.) In addition, Jefferson believed that Indians would “become” white over the course of generations through the practice of independent agricultural landholding. His administration enacted policies to promote this by dissolving the Cherokee Nation’s commonwealth into farms owned by male heads of household.
Which of the framers imagined that the cotton gin would be invented, and that the market for this raw material critical to British industrialization would shift from India and North Africa to the US south?
This is only one good example of why originalism is a fallacious doctrine for making decisions about human beings: the framers couldn’t anticipate major changes that would occur even a quarter century later.
11144703 - March 11, 2012 at 5:28 pm
“If it is true that the protesters were silent and didn’t otherwise interfere with Scalia’s speech, then it is disgusting that a university would have kicked them out.”
Seems like it’s unclear. I suspect that the protesters did interfere in some way. I may be wrong. Let’s see the evidence, Claire. Most everything else is speculation, and Scalia ain’t gonna be the one presumed innocent in this blog.
Unfortunately some become ballistic at the mention of Scalia’s name—sort of like Tea Party people when they hear “Soros.” They fail to see that Scalia is far more complex than their stereotype, as reflected in his recent decisions in Melendez-Diaz and EMA where he gives a “liberal” outcome based on his originalism.
No, Claire: originalism is actually based on the understanding of a well-informed person during adoption, not necessarily the 18th century (at least with Amendments 11-27). Hence, the all-important 14th Amendment is understood based on 1868 (Yes, that’s post-slavery and different from 1789), and the 27th Amendment is based on the understanding of it in 1992.
Yes, these are subtle points but as an intellectual, Claire, you (and presumably your sympathetic commentators) make the same (necessary) subtle points when it supports your viewpoint. I hope you at least concede some of these points.
I deplore Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence, as much as most likely the majority of African Americans applaud it, since many of them are quite religious and have negative views of homosexuality (as reflected by numerous rappers).
Demonizing Scalia as opposed to measured criticism (which he deserves) is no different than the Tea Party demonizing the present military leader of the United States.
tenured_radical - March 11, 2012 at 10:17 pm
It’s creepy and weird to call me by my first name if you don’t know me; it’s creepy and weird to be anonymous if you do. And why the odd generalizations about gay people and black people? That’s creepy too.
That said, far more basic to original ism is the separation of powers as articulated by the framers, and the political economy has changed dramatically in the last 200 years or so, as has morality and notions of what constitute basic human rights.
Evidence of the protests? Click on the links provided. Or do you need to have someone guide your hand to the mouse and click?
Brian J. Glenn - March 12, 2012 at 2:14 pm
I attended the talk here at Wesleyan and thought the protesters embarrassed themselves. Having spoken with many of them, they simply
did not know what they didn’t like about him; they simply knew he did not share their politics.
Dr. Potter seems no greater informed. The court did not rule
that corporations have human rights, simply that there was a right to
political speech. It should be pointed out that a majority of the court agreed. It should also be pointed out that until the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act passed, that was the ruling for over two centuries.
Nor did I interpret Justice Scalia as stating that he would have upheld
slavery. He answered a question by saying that he understood the
Constitution as a slavery document, and I don’t think that is highly
controversial. What Dr. Potter conveniently ignores is the that he went on
to say that since a judge is bound by the Constitution, the way to
tackle a subject like that is to mount pressure through the democratic
process, and he stated that that is exactly what he would have done.
There is tremendous value to listening to people with whom one
disagrees. I am proud that most members of the Wesleyan community did exactly
that with Justice Scalia. I, for one, learned a lot from his visit, despite the fact that I do not share his politics.
Prof. Brian J. Glenn
Wesleyan University
p.s. I could also point out that the “silent protesters” were blocking the ability of those sitting behind them who wanted to follow the event. But given how loose Dr. Potter has been on the details so far, I don’t see much point in bothering with that.
jffoster - March 12, 2012 at 3:42 pm
1. Is there any political economy apart from a notion in Marxist and advocacy social science-abandoning-science ideology?
2. Granted that some things have changed, there are legitimate ways to change the Constitution. Why not try em?
historiann - March 12, 2012 at 3:46 pm
It’s great to have eyewitness testimony, Brian. Your comment is helpful to those of us who are not members of the Wesleyan community and who didn’t see the talk. However, I don’t understand your hostility towards Tenured Radical (e.g. “Dr. Potter seems no greater informed,” and “given how loose Dr, Potter has been on the details so far. . . “)
Can you please elaborate? Is it that she relies on a student blog for her information? Do you find the information presented at Wesleying unreliable or incomplete? I read the link, and the students who blogged there appear to have taken Scalia seriously and to have reported on his talk on the level, insofar as their note-taking and memories could take them. (The second one writes, “Anyway, cool stuff. For a social sciences nerd like me, it was really cool to hear the originalist rationale expressed in such a concise, clear, and convincing manner.”)
It seemed to me that TR’s larger comments about Scalia were informed by his career on the SCOTUS over the past 25 years, and weren’t just about his talk at Wesleyan. Moreover, I thought she made compelling points about public unis v. private unis and the very different expectations we can have for free speech rights at a private uni like Wesleyan. Is that where your beef is?
elizabeth66 - March 12, 2012 at 6:39 pm
At my university, you have free speech if you are a Muslim, homosecual, non-Christian, and an ethnic minority. If you do not fit any of those categories, keep you mouth shut. Otherwise, you have a target on your back. I do not understand how anybody can equate diversity with quality. We admit minorities who are below par and hire minority faculty and insist they they have easier tenure guidelines. We talk about what a great school we are, but we really aren’t.
cpotter01 - March 12, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Boy oh boy, aren’t you a treat.
tenured_radical - March 12, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Historiann makes all the right points here: follow the links, Brian. But Guantanamo *is* a human rights issue, and that’s what the silent protesters were bringing up. So is rape, the topic of the Cambridge protest. One imagines the Zenith protesters did interfere with a sight line, but the university policy is about speakers being *heard.* Does even raising
the question make me intolerant? Really? And when was the last time being comprehensible to those who oppose them a prerequisite for being entitled to speech?
I am sorry I wasn’t able to report live, but I never claimed to have been. It doesn’t sound to me like Scalia said anything about originalism that couldn’t be read in a short book but I also provide links to a more complete report than Wesleying’s in the update so that readers can decide for themselves.
One correction Brian: on the Zenith alumni/ae list serve where a version of this comment also appears you said that the protesters did not know what they thought: “Nor does Potter, but at least she is gone now. The court did not rule that corporations have human rights, simply that there was a right to political speech. I don’t like that ruling, but I have to admit, grudgingly, that I believe it is correct.”
1. I exactly know why I dislike Scalia: I just didn’t go into it in depth because trashing him was not the point of the piece. By the same logic, you don’t seem to “know” why Citizens United “is correct.” And yet, I would assume that you actually do, even though you chose to spend what airtime you have on this blog trashing me.
2. I never said the ruling said that the ruling gave corporations human rights; I said he was keen on the human rights of corporations, not people (i.e., those incarcerated at Guantanamo and elsewhere across the US and at black sites around the world.) And the last time I looked, free speech has been acknowledged in the international community as a human right since FDR’s Four Freedoms speech.
3. I am not gone. I am on leave from Zenith. But even if I came back I would respect your right to be disrespectful of a colleague you do not know over an alumni list serve.
Because I believe in free speech, and that the answer to noxious speech is more speech.
Brian J. Glenn - March 12, 2012 at 9:51 pm
Dear Historiann,
In general, I tend not to reply to people who do not use their real names. There is no harm in it. You go so far as to refer to Dr. Potter as TR. Her name is Claire Potter, everyone knows that.
The reason I am replying is because you say I aim my hostility at, err, “Tenured Radical.” No, I aim my hostility at the fact that she made false statements to support several points, and it is interesting that you do not take her to task, nor does she apologize for them.
There is no need to repeat what I have already said, but let me just suggest to you that you map out the argument she is attempting to make, and then understand it in the context of the falsehoods that she (knowingly or not) writes. Her points rest of falsehoods and statements taken out of context. This is true for both the court cases and the J. Scalia’s discussion of slavery.
That is the point I find very offensive. If one is going to live the life of the mind, one has to choose early on whether or not to do so honestly or not. Dr. Potter has made her decisions, and chances are you read her because she affirms your beliefs. Even so, I would certainly hope, err, “Historiann,” that you would find it offensive when an academic mis-depicts a justice’s beliefs in the *exact opposite* manner from what he himself said.
That is where my “beef” is. I wonder why you do not feel the same way?
Brian
Brian J. Glenn - March 12, 2012 at 10:18 pm
Dear Claire,
You would be well served to apologize when you are wrong.
Your blog post was simply filled with falsehoods and inaccurate statements. Once the falsehoods are pointed out, very little remains. A reporter would have apologized for giving the false impression that J. Scalia supported slavery as you did. You have not yet done so.
You are the person who used the phrase “human rights for corporations.” There is no such thing. There are free speech rights, rights that existed for over two centuries, and that a majority of the court upheld. Of course you are referring to that case. Rather than dance around that fact, just admit it and move on.
At the kindest reading of this posting, Dr. Potter, you were sloppy. At worst, you deliberately misrepresented. I do not know, nor do I care, but you have had ample opportunity to apologize for your inaccuracies and have yet to do so. Just admit them.
It is okay to admit you were sloppy. It is proper to apologize when you misrepresent, even inadvertently.
I have said nothing disrespectful of *you* in my comments here. You wrote a simply disgraceful blog post full of inaccuracies, and I pointed them out because the points you are attempting to make in regards to how you believe people should understand Justice Scalia’s beliefs rest on those inaccuracies.
Just apologize for them, Dr. Potter.
Brian
tenured_radical - March 12, 2012 at 10:46 pm
And the answer to obnoxious speech is to go to bed. You are starting to get silly and over the top.
11144703 - March 12, 2012 at 10:51 pm
Claire:
When I praised your past columns, e.g., calling your previous column “great,” you did not reprimand me for calling you by your first name as “creepy and weird.”
As a regular columnist you’re a big fish in a small (academic) pond. You’re a public figure within this little world of academe (see NY Times v. Sullivan and especially Curtis v. Butts).
Moreover, “Claire” shows affection (as I might mention “Ani,” i.e, Ani DiFranco with my friends and indeed would call her that loudly at a concert!) and is light years from physioprof’s profanity talking about Scalia. physioprof sounds more like some Tea Party members talking about the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. Do you find physioprof’s strong (although totally protected) profanity creepy and weird?
Was Leonidas (Benjamin Rush) creepy and weird? Helvidius (Madison)? Pacificus (Hamilton)? Scipio (William Livingston)? As you know, anonymous speech is protected (see SCOTUS cases Talley, McIntyre, and Buckley).
“And why the odd generalizations about gay people and black people?”
I made no generalizations about gay people. Maybe I missed it: where? When I said I found Scalia’s Lawrence dissent (about gay people) deplorable?
The generalization that the majority of black people in the U.S. do not support ssm is valid and not creepy and weird. If so, the numerous columns about this problem in the black community are creepy and weird, e.g., Huff Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/gay-marriage-black-churches_n_1313824.html
A number of rappers reflect outrageous prejudice against the gay community: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_homo. Claire, you need to listen to some hip hop.
I wish you dealt with the substance of my statements. You didn’t.
I hope you reconsider your comments about me.
tenured_radical - March 12, 2012 at 11:06 pm
So now that we are on a first name basis, what do I call you — 1114? Let’s get that straight first.
Bonalibro - March 13, 2012 at 7:49 am
Gentlemen,
I learned some time ago not to tangle with Dr. Potter. It’s as futile as arguing with your wife. She never ever concedes a point.
Daniel Goldberg - March 13, 2012 at 11:01 am
TR,
Although I generally agree with your take on originalism — I’ve actually written on this in context of Justice Scalia, way back in the day when I had designs on being a lawprof — it’s worth noting that accounts of originalism have gotten much more theoretically sophisticated in the last 5-6 years. The so-called “New Originalism” is almost without question more plausible and more interesting than the version you seem to write about here, and I say this as an unapologetic critic of the theory.
If you’re interested in this, it’s worth looking at some of Larry Solum’s work on “Semantic Originalism.”
cpotter01 - March 13, 2012 at 8:20 pm
But the difference would be — I am not your wife. It’s comments like that that turn complete strangers into feminists.
cpotter01 - March 13, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Thanks Daniel.
Bonalibro - March 13, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Hiya Doc,
How charming to hear from you again. The as … as construction takes account of that fact. Perhaps you could back up your final assertion with some kind of supporting argument.
And here I thought I was acting as your tail gunner. Though that might be deconstructed to a double entendre, it was definitely not intended as one.
tenured_radical - March 13, 2012 at 9:00 pm
Tail Gunner Joe?
Bonalibro - March 13, 2012 at 9:27 pm
deleted
Bonalibro - March 13, 2012 at 9:28 pm
One of my all-time least favorite people. The fact that I am not a post-modernist new-leftist does not make me a McCarthyite Conservative. There are shades of grey between your white and his black and I am among the lightest of them. But those with slight differences on either end of the political spectrum are always regarded as a greater threat than the one that is supposed to unite us. Divide and conquer is the first principle of warfare. The parochialism of identity politics is the Left’s achilles heel and I believe explains what is wrong with Kansas.
11144703 - March 13, 2012 at 10:04 pm
11 is cool.
Bonalibro is wrong when he writes about Claire: “She never ever concedes a point.” She is courageous merely to answer her correspondents, and by continuing the dialogue with me she has reconsidered, as per my request, her earlier post to me. I appreciate it since I enjoy her posts immensely, whether I agree or disagree.
platypus6 - March 14, 2012 at 12:44 pm
I think that one of the best benefits of online distance ed, is that you just get the lesson materials, and zero exposure to political college activists. It’s like…magic. If you really want to learn something, you turn on the computer. If you want to go hang out with the fist-shakers and banner-wavers, go pay tuition and go to a physical campus. What do YOU want, out of the college ‘experience’? Not saying that the protesters don’t have anything valid or of interest to say, necessarily, but when that kind of activity becomes the apparent central function and purpose of the attendees, then you start asking questions about the faculty and administrators, and just what kind of taxpayer-funded circus they’re running, there. Put the ‘education’ back in higher ed, and pull the plug on the rest of it. If people want to present/orchestrate political functions, then they can go rent a place and do that. But not at taxpayer expense using school facilities. The purpose of having a college, is to educate those so inclined. If that’s not the purpose they’re being used for, then work to reduce taxpayer burden by closing them down.
cpotter01 - March 14, 2012 at 1:57 pm
I suppose I welcome your perspective, even though I find the idea of everybody who wants a college degree not getting to speak or see a professor or another student odd. But a small correction: Zenith is a private institution and not funded by taxpayers. So even if you and Ron Paul had your way, it wouldn’t be closed down. And the vast majority of flagship publics are less than 20% funded by tax dollars. Presumably you wouldn’t want your taxpayer funded student loans for an online degree yanked, though?
cwm4c - March 14, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Thanks for injecting accuracy into this string
joejoe1 - March 14, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Brian,
Two points here:
1. “Having spoken with many of [the protesters], they simply did not know what they didn’t like about [Scalia]; they simply knew he did not share their politics.”
Actually this is pretty common on college campuses. Perhaps there were other protesters who were better informed.
Scalia has a list of objectionable beliefs and certain of his actions are incompatible with the strict reading of the Constitution that informs his answers on slavery. His role in the SC decision which stopped the 2000 Presidential vote count in Florida seems incompatible with someone who respects the restriction of Federal power in regard to the states inherent in the original Constitution.
However, getting back to the original point, students need to know who and what they are protesting. That is the job of the faculty and the students themselves, who should at least do a quick Google search before they show up at a presentation. However, speakers at universities should expect a certain amount of questioning and protest, especially if they have said or done things that have produced controversy. A smart speaker will understand that most of these students really don’t have a clue and not be offended by groups of students in color-coded garb. The university was just plain cowardly to remove these protesters as long as they were respectful and not throwing pies or glitter, like some protesters I know. I think the university board is just worried about their image and making sure the speaker has a good time. The university regarded Scalia as a feather in its cap, not as a public servant whom members of the public have the right to respectfully confront. You know, the public who pays (or whose parents pay) the Supreme Court Justice’s salary and who have to live with the results of his decisions.
The university is one of the few places where someone can (or should be able to) protest without fearing the loss of a job or the blast of a Taser. This is what Dr. Potter is most upset about: the fact that the private university-corporation can completely shut down the free speech of its students in the presence of a speaker. Of course, this corporate-style clamp down on free speech may extend to the public realm as Obama may soon sign HR 347 which will slap a fine or prison sentence on any person or group protesting (to the point of interference) on or near a Federal facility where government functions are taking place. The definitions of “interference” is, of course, vague. I’m still in the process of reading the bill, but if “government functions” mean “Federally funded research” then protesters at all universities are going to get more than pepper spray in the near future.
2. “I could also point out that the “silent protesters” were blocking the ability of those sitting behind them who wanted to follow the event.”
OK, Brian, seriously?
When you attend a large presentation by a famous individual on campus, it’s often hard to see, even when no protesters are present. Try attending a noon concert on campus and attempting to catch a glimpse of the band. To say that students shouldn’t silently protest because a few people behind them can’t see is a really flimsy reason to deny free speech. Dude, bring binoculars and stand along the wall.
nadirundergrad - March 15, 2012 at 12:07 am
I think this is in good faith, but I have several problems with your assertions. While TR addressed the issues of taxpayer funding, what you have to realize is that political activism (especially at actual, partially tax-funded schools) often crystalizes around students’ access to education itself: what kind, and at what cost? Passionate critique is part of education itself, and shouldn’t be dismissed as a roadblock any more than dissent should be separated from democracy. Student political action has often proved crucial in galvanizing wider social movements; see the Sorbonne in ’68 and the Athens Polytechnic more recently.
It’s distressing to see someone suggest that protest should remain exclusively the right of those who can “rent a place” to stage it in (and preach to the choir in a storage unit?), or that there is nothing to be learned in the physical world that can’t be gleaned from the internet. Ironically, I think these attitudes stem directly from the failure of the public sphere as a realm for sane, free discourse and dissent in the past 40 years.
cpotter01 - March 17, 2012 at 9:09 am
Historiann’s identity is fully available at her blog.
joejoe1 - March 17, 2012 at 9:48 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn7xELvMQMo&feature=player_embedded
Federal Anti-Protest Law: HR 347